Many companies do as little as possible but there are also those that do an average job and those that do an excellent job. Blanket statement FAIL.

Security Companies DO have financial incentives to audit their code as it would be highly embarrassing and financially damaging if things like this were to be found.

The "Real" difference between closed source is that number and variety of people that can look at the code increasing coverage against poor coding or just plain human error (in the code and in checking the code).

However, there is not real statistical way to accurately quantify security verification. Are 3 less intelligent/fastidious code checkers in an OSS project than 1 very fastidious/Intelligent code checker better?

The fact that OSS is more secure is still only a (probable) hypothesis. NOT 100% proven theory.

I would say that it is likely that the low hanging security bugs are more likely to be caught in OSS that closed source, but the really tricky stuff in critical software is probably a much more level playing field.

There is zero hostility on my part; I'm merely stating a fact. google_ninja is trolling - with support from MollyC. No surprise though. They are as mad as a certain french windmill.

EDIT: Corporate Capitalism results in companies only having one incentive: Maximum profit. This means they will do as little as necessary and cannot be relied on for anything remotely connected to infrastructure and security. They are good at making refrigerators, but that's it really. Anything more than that requires laws that diminishes profits unless the companies take on certain tasks. Or put differently: Companies have zero incentive to audit their code.